Supreme Court ruling on Habeas Corpus

[sailaway21]

Here's the complete text of the Supreme court ruling in Boumediene, et al versus Bush, et al. Chief Justice Roberts dissent noting that alien enemy combatants are now granted rights that American enemy combatants do not have is interesting. His dissent begins on or about page 83 of the document. Note also his remarks that the detainees are also already granted substantive habeas corpus rights under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2003, rights which none have sought to use.

The matter of Habeas Corpus now throws the entire matter into the hands of the Federal District Courts subverting the will of the Congress which had given the detainees access strictly to the DC Court of Appeals for determination of the reasonableness of their detention.

Roberts and Scalia are particularly scathing in their dissent noting the Court's willingness to overlook it's own ruling in Hamdi vs Bush.

A word of advise, especially if you find my posts long-winded, page down past the syllabus to the actual ruling, it's long enough in it's own right!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/06-1195.pdf

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Here's the complete text of the Supreme court ruling in Boumediene, et al versus Bush, et al. Chief Justice Roberts dissent noting that alien enemy combatants are now granted rights that American enemy combatants do not have is interesting. His dissent begins on or about page 83 of the document. Note also his remarks that the detainees are also already granted substantive habeas corpus rights under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2003, rights which none have sought to use.

The matter of Habeas Corpus now throws the entire matter into the hands of the Federal District Courts subverting the will of the Congress which had given the detainees access strictly to the DC Court of Appeals for determination of the reasonableness of their detention.

Roberts and Scalia are particularly scathing in their dissent noting the Court's willingness to overlook it's own ruling in Hamdi vs Bush.

A word of advise, especially if you find my posts long-winded, page down past the syllabus to the actual ruling, it's long enough in it's own right!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/06-1195.pdf

So, how do you feel about the matter? What is your stance? SHould they or should they not be able to have their day in court?

- CD

[camaraderie]

My view is no...they should not. They have more rights than the Nazi's did after WWII and the court should have deferred to the Congressional plan. This is a most unusual war with an entirely new type of combattant. That those enemy combatants captured during hostilities should have the same right to a trial as Americans is beyond my comprehension.
Since the court has spoken this is the law now and we must adhere to it while working to overturn the decision with an amendment. Of course there remains the possibility that we could simply re-patriate these individuals to Afghanistan and Iraq and let the local governments deal with their "citizens". I see nothing in the Supremes ruling that would preclude such a release from OUR custody. My guess is that the pleas for habeus corpus would quickly turn into pleas for Asylum in Gitmo!

[Cruisingdad]

I can see why you would say that. On one side I agree. THey certainly would not show us the same courtesy. And they are not American citizens..

HOWEVER....

Aren't we opening Pandora's box? By not showing the civility and humanity we hold ourselves to, does that not give other countries a viable excuse to do the same? And what if you WERE a US citizen... how could you prove it locked away in a hole? What message does this send to other nations? It seems hypocritical to me.

I say try them. If they are shown to have murdered, etc, make the decision to send them back home (to what is likely now a government that will not welcome them for longer than it takes a neck to snap) or inflict capitol punishment here based upon the crime.

Why are we paying for them to sit in a jail cell? Try them. If/when they are found guilty, (as we say in Texas) Get a rope.

But a fair trial should be the right of mankind, not the kind man. How can we pretend to value liberty and equality when we do not show it (especially when we do not have to)?

- CD

[bwalker42]

[And I quote]

But a fair trial should be the right of mankind,

- CD[/quote]

IMHO Fair trials went out the window a long time ago...

[poopdeckpappy]

I think at ths point they are POW's and should be treated as such, when a victory on the " War against Terrorism " can be declaired they should be released, ( if they're still living ) or face trial for war crimes, just like they would do in any other war.

They should be thankful to still be among the living....IMHO

[hellosailor]

CD-
"How can we pretend to value liberty and equality when we do not show it (especially when we do not have to)?"

What do you do with a rabid dog? Put it odwn, QUICKLY. Doesn't matter if you love dogs or eat them, either way you know what to do with a rabid one. The problem here is that "enemy aliens" who are not affiliated with a conventional geographical sovereign nation, don't fit into any of the accepted conventions on relationships at all. In war OR peace.

Sovereign states negotiate with sovereign states, they have never conducted treaties or negotiated with non-sovereigns EXCEPT on the basis of "law of club and fang".

While I'm concerned as to whether the prisoners (detainees my ass!) are or aren't guilty of being enemy combatants, I don't see any practical way that can be ascertained in a traditional US court system. If they were taken in combat, in a war zone...What is there to rely on? Eye witnesses? Nope, that's proven unreliable. Relatives and resumes? Ahuh, sure, equally reliable.

Sometimes you have to do the nasty and move on, and make no apology for doing what has to be done. Don't wanna be mistaken for the guys in the balck hats? OK, then sign up to wear a white hat. The only neutral parties in a war zone, are the dead. That's why we ask "Friend or Foe?" and don't start quibbling about middle grounds.

Yes, mistakes will be made. No, that isn't right. Fair alternatives? Sure, like the Marines said after the Beirut barracks bombing: Send 'em all to Allah and let him sort them out.

Or, tatoo a big American flag across their back and chest, and air drop 'em back into Waziristan. Then THEIR friends can make the hard decision. We all know about the quality of mercy in that part of the world.

[sck5]

What if YOUR son were put in jail and the key thrown away because of a case of mistaken identity? Wouldnt you want him to at least be able to say, "Hey you got the wrong guy"?

That is what this is about. Basic human decency and fairness. Just because some guy in Afghanistan claimed they were al Qaeda doesnt mean that they actually are. In fact, there are some cases where we know that they arent. We should be better than our enemies. We should set the example everyone else wants to copy. We used to be that way. Not under Bush, though.

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

CD-
"How can we pretend to value liberty and equality when we do not show it (especially when we do not have to)?"

What do you do with a rabid dog? Put it odwn, QUICKLY. Doesn't matter if you love dogs or eat them, either way you know what to do with a rabid one. The problem here is that "enemy aliens" who are not affiliated with a conventional geographical sovereign nation, don't fit into any of the accepted conventions on relationships at all. In war OR peace.

Sovereign states negotiate with sovereign states, they have never conducted treaties or negotiated with non-sovereigns EXCEPT on the basis of "law of club and fang".

While I'm concerned as to whether the prisoners (detainees my ass!) are or aren't guilty of being enemy combatants, I don't see any practical way that can be ascertained in a traditional US court system. If they were taken in combat, in a war zone...What is there to rely on? Eye witnesses? Nope, that's proven unreliable. Relatives and resumes? Ahuh, sure, equally reliable.

Sometimes you have to do the nasty and move on, and make no apology for doing what has to be done. Don't wanna be mistaken for the guys in the balck hats? OK, then sign up to wear a white hat. The only neutral parties in a war zone, are the dead. That's why we ask "Friend or Foe?" and don't start quibbling about middle grounds.

Yes, mistakes will be made. No, that isn't right. Fair alternatives? Sure, like the Marines said after the Beirut barracks bombing: Send 'em all to Allah and let him sort them out.

Or, tatoo a big American flag across their back and chest, and air drop 'em back into Waziristan. Then THEIR friends can make the hard decision. We all know about the quality of mercy in that part of the world.

What would you do if I told you one of these men was a school teacher and caught up by accident?

A boy in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What would you do if I told you that one of these men was a policeman or fireman and had never carried a gun in his life?

How do you know? How do you know their crimes unless you put them through a trial? How do you really know!?? You do not. You ASSUME they were taken for all the right reasons. Why do you shun giving them a trial? Because they might show their innocense? Because you do not believe in our system? If that is the case, then I wonder why we even fight at all.

I say we fight because we believe in our country and way of life. We believe that we will do what is right. And though our courts and laws are not perfect and they make many mistakes, it says a lot more for them that they would welcome the chance to try the worst of men than to spurn it in fear that the guilty might walk.

I for one am proud of my country for doing this. I think it stands out and says to the rest of the world that we can take the worst of man and the foulest amongst them. We will treat them the same as we would treat ourselves. THough they would never show us the same respect and laugh at us for our compassion, we still stand out and try do what is right, because we believe in our system, our way of life, and our laws. We believe in life, liberty and justice. Now where have I heard that before?

And that, Hello, is what seperates us from them. Otherwise, we are just a bunch of guys with guns.

- CD

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by sck5

What if YOUR son were put in jail and the key thrown away because of a case of mistaken identity? Wouldnt you want him to at least be able to say, "Hey you got the wrong guy"?

That is what this is about. Basic human decency and fairness. Just because some guy in Afghanistan claimed they were al Qaeda doesnt mean that they actually are. In fact, there are some cases where we know that they arent.

Do you honestly believe that the military is not weeding out the mistaken identity factors, how many thousands have been released so far that are deemed " Not a Threat "

We should be better than our enemies.

We are

We should set the example everyone else wants to copy

.

We Do

We used to be that way.

We still are

Not under Bush, though

Not true